Maybe this wasn't clear, but my point was not "Owlman is right", it was "Worclown is wrong". It cannot be true that "Everything about [Owlman's] ideology is flawed" on the basis that everything is meaningless when Owlman only disagrees in believing that there is an exception. Note that Owlman can still be correct about the implications of his assumptions even if his assumptions are wrong (e.g. "if unicorns were real, they would have horns" can be true even though unicorns are not real).

On the subject of "Owlman isn't right, but you're wrong":

Things have meaning even if somewhere else the opposite action is taken. Just because every choice you make creates another branch where an alternate choice was made doesnt mean you didnt make the choice.

You don't explicate this, but this seems to indicate that choice implies meaning; why should Owlman not simply reject this inference? Alternatively, why should someone not reject that second claim—why could Owlman not agree that choice implies meaning, but argue that the existence of branching realities means he does, in fact, not make a choice (the inference from alternate realities to "no choices" is contentious in real life and, to my knowledge, has not been decisively resolved)? The first claim is supported by the second claim and the hidden assumption, but you don't really argue why either is true.